Clipping:The Cincinnati Club ownership lawsuit
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Sunday, December 3, 1882 |
|---|---|
| Text | Justus Thorner vs. Geo. Harencourt and others. In this case, heard by Judge Harmon, yesterday [in Superior Court], the plaintiff alleges he is in partnership with Geo. Harencourt, Aaron Stern, Louis Kramer, Victor H. Long, John R. McLean and O. P. Caylor, in what is known as the Cincinnati Base Ball Club, that the association has made money, and the Treasurer has accumulate profits, now in his hands, amounting to $15,000; that his interest is one-eighth and that defendants have excluded him from the partnership and denied his right to participate in the management of the affairs of the association. He asks for a dissolution of the partnership, the appointment of a receiver to take custody of the assets; that an account be taken to ascertain the sums due to members of the partnership, and that the sums so found due be equitably distributed. On behalf of the defendant it was contended that the plaintiff was not a partner in the association, and that when an interest was offered he refused it. The plaintiff testified that he was a member of the Club, but never contributed any money, but contributed his services, and in return was to have a pecuniary interest in the profits. John R. McLean testified that Caylor, one of the defendants, who was at that time the base ball reporter for the Enquirer, told him that Thorner was a partner. M. L. Hawkins testified to the same effect. For the defense Louis Kramer, O. P. Caylor and A. Stern were called, and testified to the fact that Thorner had always stated to them that he had no pecuniary interest in the club, but was merely a nominal partner. George Herancourt testifed that Thorner signed the articles of partnership for him simply as his agent, because he (Herancourt) did not want to be known in the matter; that he had furnished all the money, and that after Thorner had signed the articles for him upon Thorner complaining to him that he was doing all the work and getting nothing for it, he thereupon made an agreement with Thorner to pay him twenty per cent. of his profits in case Thorner did all the work. Case submitted. Wilby & Ward for plaintiff; M. P. Wilson contra. |
| Source | Cincinnati Commercial Tribune |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />